This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Martin Millnert
millnert at gmail.com
Thu May 5 11:11:33 CEST 2011
Alex, On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Alex Band <alexb at ripe.net> wrote: > In a nutshell: My take is that Resource Certification drives routing *preferences*. If a network operator sees an expired or invalid prefix, they can investigate and *choose* to take action. This also applies to decisions when using router hardware, as described in section 5 of "BGP Prefix Origin Validation": > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-01#section-5 > > "Considering invalid routes for BGP decision process is a pure ***local policy matter*** and should be done with utmost care." (Emphasis mine) I am hoping you can give some practical examples on how one goes about considering routes invalid with utmost care. Kind Regards, Martin
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]